Is it the water skiing in a wheeled airplane that's stupid, or the videoing of same?Cat Driver wrote:The videos of water skiing wheel airplanes are the ones that are really super stupid.
How low can you really fly?
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister
Re: How low can you really fly?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: How low can you really fly?
In my opinion it is the water skiing.
The video will be a good thing as far as the insurance company is concerned if you dig the wheels in and wreck the airplane...
Not to mention you may not survive the experience.
The video will be a good thing as far as the insurance company is concerned if you dig the wheels in and wreck the airplane...
Not to mention you may not survive the experience.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: How low can you really fly?
Like these guys?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWovoK4Ja_8
Then there's that guy in the UK that was prosecuted for endangering an aircraft or its occupants, doing it on Ullswater in Cumbria, by the CAA. The District Judge threw the case out and ordered the CAA to pay his costs, saying “I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that this aircraft was in any danger."
I believe some on this forum know more about the event; perhaps they could tell us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWovoK4Ja_8
Then there's that guy in the UK that was prosecuted for endangering an aircraft or its occupants, doing it on Ullswater in Cumbria, by the CAA. The District Judge threw the case out and ordered the CAA to pay his costs, saying “I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that this aircraft was in any danger."
I believe some on this forum know more about the event; perhaps they could tell us?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: How low can you really fly?
I always thought people should be allowed to have fun even if its risky as long as they don't cause a risk to others or their property. So scuba diving of all kinds, sky diving, hang gliding, mountain climbing, motocross, downhill biking, ballooning etc. and of course aerobatics. These are all almost completely pointless and risky activities but are tremendous fun ... but can be deadly of course. I just never felt it was my business trying to tell people what risks to take unless they are involving other people or other people's property.
Re: How low can you really fly?
Exactly.as long as they don't cause a risk to others or their property.
The first point to be considered is that once the video of the risky behaviour is posted, that just created a risk for "others" who may be emboldened to go and try it. These others may not realize the training, preparation and perhaps appropriate equipment which was used to reduce risks by the first person (who is entitled to go have fun). Do pilots who undertake steep, prolonged slower than Vx climbs practice forced approaches from that configuration? Do water skiing pilots wear a life jacket, and remain current on underwater egress training? If they do, and are appropriately prepared for the unexpected, does this risk mitigation become a part of what the "other" viewer might see in the video?
The next point to be considered is that no matter how well you prepared yourself, casual observers, and perhaps would be, or really needed rescuers may not understand what is, or is not needed. Our society has reached the stage where no matter how stupid and unprepared a person is, when they get themselves in trouble, someone is going to phone 911 about it, and then someone else is going to be expected to drive an emergency vehicle with urgency, through and around traffic, and many other entirely wise and uninvolved people, putting them at increased risk, all to go to rescue the stupid risk taker. That person may bnot even need or desire rescuing, but the citizen with 911 on their display does not know that. Many has bee the time I've driven the red truck with urgency to a reported accident, or flown my plane out over lake Simcoe, to search for someone, to find they were not in need of this service, although to the casual observer, could have appeared to be. It's an incredible cost and increased risk in emergency service response, for these people, who were out having fun, only putting themselves at risk, and when 911 is called on their behalf, they don't seem to want to pay the multi thousand dollar bill for the service dispatched to rescue them! So you do.
I'll never succeed in suggesting that people stop having fun, and taking risks, I still do. But I don't make and post low altitude maneuvering videos, and if I'm low flying, either no one could possibly see it - or, everyone is seeing it, 'cause I'm searching the shoreline looking for someone else who the public thought was in peril! The "Ullswater pilot" caused a costly emergency services dispatch, and many citizen public concern. There's cost and risk to that. He operated an aircraft beyond gliding distance from shore - was he wearing/carrying a lifejacket? Had he had the training to escape inverted underwater and use it?
Re: How low can you really fly?
I think it's unfair to try to stick something - anything - to the Ullswater pilot because of a costly emergency response that he didn't cause. Do you have any other reason to think that he didn't have a life jacket?
You yourself caused concern from the authorities by landing and parking your 150 on the ice to go shopping, as you've described here. Should we be trying to nitpick your regulatory compliance that day because a member of the public overreacted and called the RCMP?
You yourself caused concern from the authorities by landing and parking your 150 on the ice to go shopping, as you've described here. Should we be trying to nitpick your regulatory compliance that day because a member of the public overreacted and called the RCMP?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: How low can you really fly?
Yes, I have landed my 150 on the ice many times to "go ashore" in town (and contribute to their local economy), and yes the police were called once (and nasty media report couple of times). A difference was that most often, my 150 was among a number of aircraft all parked there together, and the few times my plane was alone, it was still obviously parked on regularly used ice, and not in "motion" perceived danger. 'Not much different to my parking my ATV or snowmobile on ice, near shore - a common Canadian thing, which emergency services dispatchers should be able to assess during an "abundance of caution" 911 call.
I cannot say if the Ullswater pilot was wearing a lifejacket, but the person involved in the court case in the UK who could know/find out, did not defend the pilot to my inquiry stating that he was. So I do not assert, though suggest had he been wearing one, he probably would have proudly asserted that as a part of his defense. As to his "causing" an emergency response... Well, it is reasonable to assume that citizens who see a wheel plane contacting the water are going to assume it is ditching, and probably had the call in to "999" before he added power and went around. As we "hopefully" do as a courtesy to emergency services (like notifying the fire department in advance of having a big burn), a pilot flying highly visible and unusual maneuvers should notify local dispatch (though police or fire is fine) that this will be happening, and might be reported from shore.
I have certainly done this during low altitude drop testing we were doing with a Dash 8 over Lake Simcoe. I told dispatch that we'd be doing it, and they'd get calls. They got the calls, and when confirmed it was the same event, told the caller it was okay. In my opinion, if the Ullswater pilot was properly trained and equipped for waterskiing his plane, prepared to take the risk (meaning that either he accepted the risk of hull loss, or his insurer knowingly did), and he chose a suitable body of water and notified emergency dispatch - fill your boots. I still think it's dumb, but he would have discharged his responsibility to "others". When I landed my 150 on the deserted ocean beach in Gerogia, with my wife for a picnic, the first thing I did was to scribe "SAFE" into the sand next to it, so that the inevitable overflying aircraft could see that I was not in distress.
We rush red trucks with lights and sirens to a lot of places they do not need to be. I don't mind driving them, but there are increased risks, and there are collisions. Yes, people pull out in front of vehicles displaying flashing lights! Our fire department has never had an "at fault" collision responding to a call, but the risk is there, and others have. Unfortunately, public accountability for "causing an unnecessary emergency response" is poor, we can't dissuade people from reporting what they think they see - some are real. But the people who know better, should do better, or be accountable to "others" for the cost of responses they trigger, while they are seen taking unusual risks for fun.
I cannot say if the Ullswater pilot was wearing a lifejacket, but the person involved in the court case in the UK who could know/find out, did not defend the pilot to my inquiry stating that he was. So I do not assert, though suggest had he been wearing one, he probably would have proudly asserted that as a part of his defense. As to his "causing" an emergency response... Well, it is reasonable to assume that citizens who see a wheel plane contacting the water are going to assume it is ditching, and probably had the call in to "999" before he added power and went around. As we "hopefully" do as a courtesy to emergency services (like notifying the fire department in advance of having a big burn), a pilot flying highly visible and unusual maneuvers should notify local dispatch (though police or fire is fine) that this will be happening, and might be reported from shore.
I have certainly done this during low altitude drop testing we were doing with a Dash 8 over Lake Simcoe. I told dispatch that we'd be doing it, and they'd get calls. They got the calls, and when confirmed it was the same event, told the caller it was okay. In my opinion, if the Ullswater pilot was properly trained and equipped for waterskiing his plane, prepared to take the risk (meaning that either he accepted the risk of hull loss, or his insurer knowingly did), and he chose a suitable body of water and notified emergency dispatch - fill your boots. I still think it's dumb, but he would have discharged his responsibility to "others". When I landed my 150 on the deserted ocean beach in Gerogia, with my wife for a picnic, the first thing I did was to scribe "SAFE" into the sand next to it, so that the inevitable overflying aircraft could see that I was not in distress.
We rush red trucks with lights and sirens to a lot of places they do not need to be. I don't mind driving them, but there are increased risks, and there are collisions. Yes, people pull out in front of vehicles displaying flashing lights! Our fire department has never had an "at fault" collision responding to a call, but the risk is there, and others have. Unfortunately, public accountability for "causing an unnecessary emergency response" is poor, we can't dissuade people from reporting what they think they see - some are real. But the people who know better, should do better, or be accountable to "others" for the cost of responses they trigger, while they are seen taking unusual risks for fun.
Re: How low can you really fly?
Too much assuming going on. Happily the district judge didn't assume anything, looked at the actual facts, and beat the CAA with a big stick.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: How low can you really fly?
I assume.... that the CAA don't care. Each of the CAA staff were paid their paycheque, and each of the emergency services staff were too. It was the taxpayer who was beaten with the big stick, they paid the bill. Ullswater pilot, had he done things with more care and caution, could have averted most, if not all of that big bill.and beat the CAA with a big stick.
I drive a big red truck with red flashing lights, someone calls, I drive, and am paid to do it. Taxpayer pays, life saved/value added, or not. It's in societies interest that false alarms and the perceived need for enforcement action are minimized. That can start with responsible piloting....
Re: How low can you really fly?
I believe the relevant CAA officials care very much. Losing an criminal enforcement case in such a spectacular manner is a big deal around the office, and with their superiors.
The quantum of money for costs isn't important; the fact that the prosecution was ordered to pay it, is huge.
The quantum of money for costs isn't important; the fact that the prosecution was ordered to pay it, is huge.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: How low can you really fly?
Indeed, it sends a message to "enforcers" of the direction the courts would like them to follow in their efforts for society at large. So be it... Protect people against themselves less, society will accept the service cost for the clean up later.... 'Makes no nevermind to me, I've learned (though it took decades, and the loss of a few friends) to keep my high risk flying to a minimum. I hope all pilots consider carefully the benefit they might perceive, relative to the risk to which they could be exposing themselves, when low flying.the fact that the prosecution was ordered to pay it, is huge.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: How low can you really fly?
Is landing a wheel equipped airplane on water covered in its C of A?
Or is water skiing not considered having landed on the water?
In any case I personally think water skiing a wheel equipped airplane is a risk not worth taking.
Or is water skiing not considered having landed on the water?
In any case I personally think water skiing a wheel equipped airplane is a risk not worth taking.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: How low can you really fly?
From your lips to G-d's ears, please.PilotDAR wrote:Protect people against themselves less
But in any event, that's not the message I take away. What I take away is that if you're going to prosecute someone for endangering an airplane, it had better be on the basis of real danger, and not merely because the stiff-necks disapprove of the manoeuvre. Which is as it should be.
Why are you so keen to punish this pilot? We let people do all kinds of much more dangerous stuff; pilots get killed often, flying aerobatic routines, and for those that are merely maimed or burned we (society) pay huge medical costs. Why are we so concerned about "protecting" *this* guy from himself?
He wanted to do something risky, he learned how to do it, successfully, and he did it. Why the zealous "I don't think he was wearing a life jacket"?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: How low can you really fly?
The problem with trying to protect people from themselves is that its a never ending battle and eventually it comes back around to protecting you against something that you enjoy. Risk taking is also a necessary trait in humans, its how we make progress. Now granted water skiing is not going to make much progress that I can see but other actives do, sky diving, scuba, aerobatics etc all have some uses beyond the pure fun part. One good example is the development of the Rolls Royce Merlin and the fighters, much of which was due to the air racing craze at the time. Some of the test pilots and engineers etc. learned from that and applied it to great benefit giving them many years advance.
As an aside I have heard that water skiing is used in Alaska as a way to extend a landing on a river edge, so you land on the water and then ski up to the shore and then once on shore you can throttle back. Allows for a shorter landing supposedly. My guess is it was discovered by accident that you could ski by putting the wheels down a tad early.
As an aside I have heard that water skiing is used in Alaska as a way to extend a landing on a river edge, so you land on the water and then ski up to the shore and then once on shore you can throttle back. Allows for a shorter landing supposedly. My guess is it was discovered by accident that you could ski by putting the wheels down a tad early.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: How low can you really fly?
The physics are easy to understand however there is a point at which the wheels will dig in if either speed is decreased or the angle of attack the wing sees changes enough to over pressure the weight the wheels are seeing..
We need someone here to equip their airplane with a device that measures the amount of weight the wheels are providing during the skiing event and at what point the lift the wheels are providing decreases and the airplane flips over.
Anyone?
We need someone here to equip their airplane with a device that measures the amount of weight the wheels are providing during the skiing event and at what point the lift the wheels are providing decreases and the airplane flips over.
Anyone?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: How low can you really fly?
Lol. I'm up for it.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: How low can you really fly?
The aerodynamics, hydrodynamics and their combined drag vs lift are really quite interesting.
All we need now is a few people to supply an airplane and someone to fly it.
I will video it.
There was a video of a Cessna amphib touching down on glassy water with the wheels down, it flipped over so fast it was amazing.
All we need now is a few people to supply an airplane and someone to fly it.
I will video it.
There was a video of a Cessna amphib touching down on glassy water with the wheels down, it flipped over so fast it was amazing.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: How low can you really fly?
I have no particular bone to pick with the "Ullswater pilot", but rather generally think less of pilots who will do something without forethought, perhaps actually violate regulation while doing it, and then rather than accept and admit that they could have done it better, asserted that they'd done nothing wrong. Lifejacket: I don't know whether he was carrying one, as I'm confident that UK regulations would also require. However, when his defense representative briefly discussed the case with me by email, I asked the question. The question was not answered with an assurance that the pilot had complied with that regulation.
Our aviation society will proudly state how paticular they are about maintenance, and assuring that the aircraft is airworthy before flying it. Heaven help one who might deliberately fly an aircraft with only one mag functioning, one unserviceable brake, or a dead cylinder. But, once there is satisfaction that the aircraft has been maintained to near perfection, a pilot will take it and attempt some really silly things. The accidents which are too common in our industry are not generally resulting from maintenance failings, but rather pilot skill and decision making failings.
In my opinion, it is a decision making failing for a pilot to either: Undertake a flight with the intention of flying out of gliding distance of shore without being properly equipped, or to decide in the moment to try it, without having begun the flight equipped for a change in decision. No, I do not want my tax dollar spent chasing silly people, it's a waste. I would be so much happier if good mentoring, and peer pressure guided newer pilots to good planning, decision making and an effort at compliance, so flying was simply more safe.
Since 10:30 this morning, I have flown aircraft low deliberately. Just skimming the treetops, purposefully positioning the aircraft just where I wanted it to be - for the intended landing ahead. In each case, it was an approach path I knew well, and the low flying was an element to accomplish the landing in the intended space - all for practice. Each of the runways (two) and lakes (four) are bounded by trees on the approach. (Oh, by the way, I confirmed that the wheels were retracted, in accordance with the flight manual for the aircraft, before I touched it to the water!). Low flying is necessary sometimes, and it is a practiced skill, so I do.
If my aircraft where upside down in the water, with the wheels extended, could I come on here, and not be ridiculed for it? It's a taildragger, I was trying to waterski it, I could say! I saw it on a video, so it shoulda worked I would protest.... To the insurer I would have to call on Tuesday? How could I state that it was anything but either carelessnes or stupidity (which I think they do insure for) that put my plane into the drink wheels down!?! The instructions say to land in the water with the wheels up!
I've lifted two dead pilot friends from their crashed planes over the years. I had yet another pilot friend die in a flight training accident a few weeks ago. Of these three pilot friends (let alone others I have lost in flying accidents) each of their flying experience exceeded mine. Happily, the two aircraft accidents I have witnessed on the runway I own were non injurious, but one was close. I need to take away from these a reminder that flying will bite the unwary. I can hardly continue onward to mentor and train pilots while presenting or defending goofy flying habits. I make my living assuring that aircraft are safe, and design compliant, shouldn't I care about pilots too, when I know better?
Our aviation society will proudly state how paticular they are about maintenance, and assuring that the aircraft is airworthy before flying it. Heaven help one who might deliberately fly an aircraft with only one mag functioning, one unserviceable brake, or a dead cylinder. But, once there is satisfaction that the aircraft has been maintained to near perfection, a pilot will take it and attempt some really silly things. The accidents which are too common in our industry are not generally resulting from maintenance failings, but rather pilot skill and decision making failings.
In my opinion, it is a decision making failing for a pilot to either: Undertake a flight with the intention of flying out of gliding distance of shore without being properly equipped, or to decide in the moment to try it, without having begun the flight equipped for a change in decision. No, I do not want my tax dollar spent chasing silly people, it's a waste. I would be so much happier if good mentoring, and peer pressure guided newer pilots to good planning, decision making and an effort at compliance, so flying was simply more safe.
Since 10:30 this morning, I have flown aircraft low deliberately. Just skimming the treetops, purposefully positioning the aircraft just where I wanted it to be - for the intended landing ahead. In each case, it was an approach path I knew well, and the low flying was an element to accomplish the landing in the intended space - all for practice. Each of the runways (two) and lakes (four) are bounded by trees on the approach. (Oh, by the way, I confirmed that the wheels were retracted, in accordance with the flight manual for the aircraft, before I touched it to the water!). Low flying is necessary sometimes, and it is a practiced skill, so I do.
If my aircraft where upside down in the water, with the wheels extended, could I come on here, and not be ridiculed for it? It's a taildragger, I was trying to waterski it, I could say! I saw it on a video, so it shoulda worked I would protest.... To the insurer I would have to call on Tuesday? How could I state that it was anything but either carelessnes or stupidity (which I think they do insure for) that put my plane into the drink wheels down!?! The instructions say to land in the water with the wheels up!
I've lifted two dead pilot friends from their crashed planes over the years. I had yet another pilot friend die in a flight training accident a few weeks ago. Of these three pilot friends (let alone others I have lost in flying accidents) each of their flying experience exceeded mine. Happily, the two aircraft accidents I have witnessed on the runway I own were non injurious, but one was close. I need to take away from these a reminder that flying will bite the unwary. I can hardly continue onward to mentor and train pilots while presenting or defending goofy flying habits. I make my living assuring that aircraft are safe, and design compliant, shouldn't I care about pilots too, when I know better?
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: How low can you really fly?
What positives if any are there to water skiing a wheel airplane?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: How low can you really fly?
How about just the sheer joy of doing it?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: How low can you really fly?
We think a bit differently obviously.
I would not find joy water skiing a wheel airplane because in the back of my mind I would be thinking what affect it would have on my flying career if something went wrong and I wrecked the machine.
Receiving joy from accurate flying for me is remembering the nice even new growth of green plants in fields I applied seeds to in the spring.
We did lot of aerial seeding in the spring when the fields were to wet for tractors and seeding machines.
Joy is seeing no streaks and nice even growth when it started to get green, which meant all the passes were straight lines and evenly spaced and the height of application was accurate.
The spreader under the airplane left a pattern that was heavy in the centre and light on the edges, so to get an even application there needed to be some overlap each pass.
Also the pull ups and turn arounds had to be very exact to get even spacing, it really helped to have some cross wind even though it changed the turn around angles of bank somewhat.
I would not find joy water skiing a wheel airplane because in the back of my mind I would be thinking what affect it would have on my flying career if something went wrong and I wrecked the machine.
Receiving joy from accurate flying for me is remembering the nice even new growth of green plants in fields I applied seeds to in the spring.
We did lot of aerial seeding in the spring when the fields were to wet for tractors and seeding machines.
Joy is seeing no streaks and nice even growth when it started to get green, which meant all the passes were straight lines and evenly spaced and the height of application was accurate.
The spreader under the airplane left a pattern that was heavy in the centre and light on the edges, so to get an even application there needed to be some overlap each pass.
Also the pull ups and turn arounds had to be very exact to get even spacing, it really helped to have some cross wind even though it changed the turn around angles of bank somewhat.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: How low can you really fly?
I get some joy while flying precisely in IMC, but I would not attempt it in a non instrument equipped aircraft. So, with the same logic, when I want the joy of landing on the water, I use an airplane designed/equipped to be landed on the water.How about just the sheer joy of doing it?
On this theme, when I used to fly the Siai Marchetti 1019, I noted that in its flight manual, it stated that any maneuver or operation not permitted by the flight manual, was prohibited. So I guess that'd rule out waterskiing one of those! The Italians thought of everything!
Re: How low can you really fly?
This video gives me joy too, but i'm not sure you could replicate it in Canada legally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o40_MzuKIGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o40_MzuKIGA
Re: How low can you really fly?
There is a long list of people who thought it would be cool to skim the treetops or fly along a winding river and ran into trouble. At least they died doing what they loved.
Re: How low can you really fly?
I'm fairly sure this guy is flying close than 500' to a person vehicle or structure. I emailed his lawyer to ask if he was wearing a life jacket and I didn't get a positive response. He deserves no respect at all.
https://youtu.be/HWO0NtY8Jlw
https://youtu.be/HWO0NtY8Jlw
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.